Professors oppose Bush 'theology' -

PASADENA -- A group of Fuller Theological Seminary professors, saying they are responding to a "grave moral crisis' in America, are signing a statement opposing President Bush's alleged convergence of God, church and nation and what they call his "theology of war.' Glen Stassen, Fuller's Louis B. Smedes professor of Christian ethics, said Bush's religious rhetoric confuses the cause of Christianity with that of a nation at war.

For instance, in Bush's 2002 State of the Union address the president labeled Iran, Iraq and North Korea the "axis of evil,' Stassen said.

"Calling the three nations the 'axis of evil' and refusing to acknowledge any errors that he has made, that sets up a dichotomy between righteous United States and unrighteous 'axis of evil,' ' Stassen said. "... It leads to a crusade in which Christians think the Christian thing to do is support war-making against an allegedly unrighteous enemy.'

The statement of beliefs, called "Confessing Christ in a World of Violence,' criticizes Bush's use of scripture in a speech on the first anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Bush described the hope offered by America by saying, "... the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness will not overcome it.'

These words, used in the Bible, apply only to Jesus Christ and no political leader has the right to "twist them into the service of war,' the confession says.

The statement began circulating among the faculty Tuesday, Stassen said. Its assertions include the claim that Jesus Christ knows no national boundaries, that Christians should have a strong presumption against war and that Christians should exercise humility, which would temper political disagreements.

About 20 professors have signed it, though it has not made the full rounds at Fuller, Stassen said. Stassen expects that almost all of the seminary's 80 full-time professors will sign it. Fuller is the largest evangelical seminary in the country.

The current confession is not the first time Fuller professors have publicly objected to Bush. About 40 faculty members signed a September 2002 letter opposing Bush's statements about a unilateral pre-emptive war in Iraq. Bush is now campaigning on pre-emptive war and using Christian language in the process, Stassen said.

The Fuller educators are part of a national movement of theologians and ethicists who are signing the document. They are being organized by Stassen, George Hunsinger of Princeton Theological Seminary, Richard B. Hays of Duke Divinity School, Richard Pierard of Gordon College and Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners magazine.

The same five leaders endorsed a recent ad campaign in the national media that proclaims, "God is Not a Republican. Or a Democrat.'

Dan Palm, political science chair at Azusa Pacific University, an evangelical Christian school, said the statement is not something he would sign. Palm said his primary critique of the statement is that it's a caricature of the Religious Right that seems designed to get politically liberal Christians out to vote.

Palm especially objected to a paragraph that suggested pastors are not preaching about teachings of Jesus such as "Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you.'

"I think that's really a low, cheap shot,' Palm said. "I think there's room for honest disagreement among Christians for when the right time is for using military force.'

Mike Spence, president of the California Republican Assembly, a conservative political organization based in Monrovia, said the movement opposing Bush's religious rhetoric sounds like it has a left-wing agenda.

"It sounds like these Fuller professors are trying to use religion to their own political end,' he said.

Spence said that Bush's use of religious imagery is no different than any other president's.

Ronald Reagan's "City on a Hill' speech was clearly a biblically based vision for the future, he said.

Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton also frequently used religious imagery, he said.

Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Seminary, said he won't sign the statement because he doesn't want to appear partisan. Mouw said he has critiques of both presidential candidates.

Mouw doesn't oppose Bush's claims that God favors freedom, but said "it's always dangerous for a nation to see itself as God's appointed agent in the world.'

Mouw, who opposed the war in Iraq, said he doesn't know Bush's intentions, but said his language resonates with evangelical Christians, some of whom consider him to be speaking for God.

There's a danger in the Christian community of people being uncritical in their endorsement of American interests, he said.

According to a recent study on religion and politics from the University of Akron, 68 percent of Americans want a president to have strong religious beliefs and 63 percent are comfortable when candidates discuss their faith.

Marshall Allen can be reached at (626) 578-6300, Ext. 4461, or by e-mail at marshall.allen@sgvn.com . For the the text of the theology letter click here

Why the Left Is Not Right --- The Religious Left: Who They Are and What They Believe by Ronald Nash

Book Review: Published in The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty - December 1997 by Doug Bandow
http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=3918

When it comes to religion and politics, most media attention is focused on the right. And it usually isn’t positive coverage. Religious conservatives are presented as threatening America’s constitutional balance, women’s right to choose, gays’ civil liberties, and much more.

Yet religious activism runs both ways. As Ronald Nash, a professor at the Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida, notes in Why the Left Is Not Right, there is an active and diverse religious left in the United States. To be sure, these people, who once “proudly proclaimed their liberal or radical connections,” now “describe themselves as moderates and centrists,” notes Nash. But their policy positions remain unashamedly left-wing.

Nash divides the religious left into three parts: liberal mainline Protestants, liberal Catholics, and left-wing evangelicals. There’s no doubt where Nash stands. He argues that these groups have been used (willingly or unwillingly) by the Democrats for electoral purposes and have helped “demonize politically conservative Christians.” A prolific author and entertaining speaker, Nash obviously views himself as among the demonized right.

In his view, the central argument is not whether people of faith should be concerned about peace and justice, but what those terms mean. The evangelical left has appeared to have simply assumed the standard liberal understanding of the words and then discredited anyone (including their politically conservative brethren) who understood the terms differently and who pursued the objectives of peace and justice in a different way.

Perhaps the greatest value of Why the Left Is Not Right is that it shows how political activism by people of faith is neither new nor restricted to conservatives. Indeed, even as evangelicals were receiving exaggerated public attention for entering the political process, mainline Protestant denominations were promoting Democratic political causes domestically and communist revolutionary movements abroad. It is a story worth remembering when the media and political establishments pour obloquy on traditionally less active evangelicals and fundamentalists as they seek to protect themselves and their values from government intrusion.

Much the same politics has been on display within the Roman Catholic Church. Catholics were once “thoughtful enemies of secularism, humanism, and the liberal welfare state,” writes Nash. Many still are, but as Nash puts it, “large cracks have appeared in the political and social thinking of many educated Catholics.” The 1985 Pastoral Letter on the economy, for example, was as political as anything emanating from the Christian Coalition. Even more radical have been specific segments of the church, such as the Maryknoll Order.

However, Nash devotes most of his attention to the lesser-known left-wing evangelicalism. He argues that the New Left and “the adversary culture” of the 1960s spawned political liberalism among Protestants who purport to hold a more conservative, orthodox theological view. Nash focuses on three leading leftish evangelicals: Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners magazine; Ron Sider, founder of Evangelicals for Social Action and author of Rich Christians in a World of Hunger; and Tony Campolo, sociology professor, well-published author, and presidential confidante.

The scrutiny is warranted, though Nash seems more skeptical of the trio’s good intentions than is justified. Wallis, for instance, lives his beliefs. Two decades ago Wallis moved his magazine to a poor section of Washington, D.C., and formed a community of the same name. At the same time, however, he has, as Nash points out, remained imbued with the leftist Zeitgeist of the 1960s. The boat people fleeing communist Vietnam, Wallis wrote, were leaving “to support their consumer habit in other lands.” Their departure should not be taken to “discredit” Vietnam. Wallis’s views toward Cuba and Nicaragua were similarly skewed.

Wallis’s economic opinions also were long solidly collectivist. The collapse of socialism abroad seems to have chastened himhe now calls himself centrist and asserts that he is independent of Democrats and Republicans alikebut he remains wedded to interventionist policies. Conservatives, Wallis charges, retain an “attachment to institutions of wealth and power, preference for the status quo, and the lack of a strong ethic of social responsibility.” Unfortunately, while Wallis now criticizes abuses by government, he underestimates how the activist state promotes concentrations of wealth and power, supports the status quo, and undermines social responsibility.

Similar is Nash’s case against Ron Sider. Sider is a gentle spirit who has borne substantial liberal criticism for his opposition to abortion and gay rights. Unfortunately, however, on economic policy he has always placed intentions before results. Thus, as Nash documents, Sider has long advocated the sort of government intervention that has been tried and found wanting throughout this century. While criticism is rife of the Christian Coalition for seemingly attaching itself to the GOP, Nash points out that “Ron Sider, the person who comes closest to being a moderate member of the evangelical Left, has himself spent years trying to elect liberal, typically Democratic, candidates to public office.”

Tony Campolo is probably the most public of the three, given his high-profile contacts with President Bill Clinton. Campolo also criticizes government, but seems committed to statist remedies when it comes to solving specific problems. Nash doesn’t stop his criticisms here, however; he goes on to question Campolo’s evangelical credentials, given the latter’s views on such issues as abortion, feminism, and the environment.

Through his analysis, which concludes with chapters on economics and poverty, Nash shows how even the best-intentioned of religious believers can come up with solutions inimical to the interests of those they wish to serve. But Nash, who has been on the receiving end of endless left-wing barbs, puts an unnecessary edge in his own analysis. Perhaps nothing irritates Nash more than the evangelical left’s flirtation with Bill Clinton.

Yet the opinions of Wallis, Sider, and Campolo reflect ignorance rather than malice. I’ve met and debated all three. All want to help those in need, seem to have been affected by the decline of statism, and were willing to acknowledge contrary arguments. They deserve to be criticized, not demonized.

Why the Left Is Not Right deals seriously with an important subject. Despite the public perception that religious activists gravitate toward the right, many people of faith have embraced collectivist remedies despite the ill effects on those most in need. In short, Nash’s basic thesis is correct: the left is not right.

Zondervan • 1996 • 222 pages

Doug Bandow, a nationally syndicated columnist, is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of Beyond Good Intentions: A Biblical View of Politics (Crossway).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.